Red Cross: Violent video games violate international law

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Tens of millions of virtual warriors in games like Call of Duty and Battlefield have drawn the attention of the Red Cross, one of the world’s foremost bodies in upholding international humanitarian law during and after real-life conflicts.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is officially sanctioned under the Geneva Conventions to apply those founding principals of international conflict, as well as the Hague Conventions governing international justice. The organization is currently investigating whether these foundations of international law should be applied to video games as well.

During an ICRC conference this week in Geneva, the Red Cross decided that even though there is debate surrounding how video games affect the public, the Red Cross Movement should take up the issue of the world’s 600 million gamers who “may be virtually violating IHL,” referring to international humanitarian law. The chief topic at the gaming-related sub-conference was the question: “What should we do?”

While specific results were few, and a simple answer was not reached, there was “an overall consensus” that something should be done. Alexandra Boivin with the ICRC told game news blog Kotaku that it was too early to share the conference’s views publicly.

The ICRC’s adoption of the topic may be happening in response to a 2007 paper published by TRIAL, a Swiss organization also based in the international law hotspot of Geneva, to advocate for victims of international crimes (such as genocide) through the international legal system. The paper, “Playing By The Rules Project,” found that violent video games — even allegedly realistic ones — were sorely lacking in their realistic representations of the rules of armed conflicts as dictated by international humanitarian and human rights law.

For example, the group pointed to numerous cases of gamers being allowed to shoot at civilians or protected places (such as churches or mosques), or depicting interrogations using torture or other inhumane treatment. The paper further pointed to extrajudicial executions (that is, killing a bad guy without putting him to trial first).

“It would be highly appreciated” if games did reflect those rules, the group wrote. They believe the “strong creativity and innovation” of the medium could easily be adapted to account for international humanitarian law.

Kotaku noted that the ICRC doesn’t exactly cram international law down member countries’ throats, but it is typically effective by working quietly and behind-the-scenes to push policymakers for change.

Gamers, don’t worry. We won’t see violent games regulated at the international level.

Legally and politically, it isn’t likely to happen. Here in the United States, our Supreme Court just established games as protected speech. As a result, any legislation that appears to impact the creative possibilities of the medium isn’t likely to survive the competitive political atmosphere that currently exists in Washington.

If DC’s deadlock isn’t convincing enough, consider the counterfactual: what would happen if some sort of game industry regulation was proposed, as was teased by the ICRC? Shooter games, like the next Modern Warfare, would be subject to some sort of international legal review, which certainly wouldn’t be cheap or fast. Games would effectively be censored. Modern Warfare 2, for example, perhaps never could have had its infamous “No Russian” scene under a stricter legal regime. (The TV business, if it were equally regulated, could never have produced eight seasons of the enormously popular 24. Jack Bauer is a walking human rights violation!)

Still, there’s plenty of room for the ICRC’s quieter, back-room style of negotiation. Future releases from big publishers like EA and Activision could at least acknowledge international law. Such moves actually have a precedent in entertainment: the relationship between Hollywood and Big Tobacco has always been complicated as Washington has changed its tone on cigarette smoking over the decades. If the ICRC were to quietly encourage military shooter creators to work international law into their titles, it would avoid Washington entirely while, in a sense, making the games more realistic.